Gregg Jarrett fills in for Sean and is joined by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to discuss impeachment hearing and the votes for acquittal and witnesses. With over 28,000 pages of documentation and 17 witnesses, the Senate thought they had enough information to make an informed decision about impeachment. It wasn't enough for some liberals!The Sean Hannity Show is on weekdays from 3 pm to 6 pm ET on iHeartRadio and Hannity.com. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz.
And I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson.
And I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst, often on Sean's television show and this radio show.
But Sean deserves a day off because, after all, it's Super Bowl weekend and he's as sick as you and I are of this impeachment nonsense, a charade, a farce.
And, you know, it continues today, even though it's over, really.
I mean, they don't have the votes to call new witnesses.
We learned that last night when Lamar Alexander and Lisa Murkowski announced, hey, we've heard enough.
Let's get on with it.
Let's vote.
But Chucky Schumer, of course, will have none of it.
So Chucky, and you know how I mean that, in the most endearing way possible, Chucky wants to draw it out.
So he's going to make all sorts of silly arguments about how it's an unfair trial without witnesses and so on and so forth.
And what Chucky doesn't realize is there've already been a dozen witnesses.
Their videotaped testimony was introduced and accepted as evidence and played for the jurors, the senators, and they've heard enough.
And yeah, John Bolton ain't going to change anything because his story is the same, you know, nonsense that many of the speculation hearsay witnesses have stated.
And, you know, the senators know this, and they're sick of it too.
And they want to, you know, watch the Super Bowl.
But Chucky's going to draw it out probably into next week.
And nobody's paying attention, frankly.
You know, yeah, it's on newsroom television sets, but across America, I think most Americans may have tuned in initially realized it was all a charade, that these articles of impeachment don't rise to the constitutional level.
And so now they've moved on to other things.
They're now watching reruns of Laverne and Shirley, which is far more valuable than this impeachment nonsense.
Our telephone number, by the way, I do want to hear from you is 800-941-7326, 800-941-7326.
Give us a call.
And by the way, I hope you picked up my new book entitled Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history, because it tells the story not just of the phony Russia hoax, but how Democrats, including Pelosi and Shifty Schiff and Nadler and the whole gang, our gang, have been out to impeach President Trump to get rid of him,
to remove him from office by hook or by crook since the day he was elected.
And it's in the new book.
So please pick up witch hunt in bookstores nationwide.
But this whole scheme to impeach President Trump was doomed from the outset because the imperious and clueless Nancy Pelosi screwed up big time, all the time.
I mean, that's what she does, and she has only herself to blame.
Pelosi's mistakes are so innumerable, she could actually write a multi-volume set entitled, let's call it the book of mistakes, lessons in political self-immolation.
Pelosi is so many things.
She is supercilious.
She is arrogant.
She is condescending.
She has allowed her hatred of Trump to obscure any sense of judgment.
Her haughty attitude on display, don't you know, during endless news conferences.
But behind the scenes, of course, she manipulated and maneuvered this impeachment process, defying the Constitution, obliterating due process, and sowing the seeds of her own self-destruction and that of her party.
And ladies and gentlemen, trust me on this, it will be Pelosi's legacy.
She richly deserves the condemnation that history will inevitably render.
Because remember, it was Pelosi who vowed she would never seek to impeach the president unless there was bipartisan support.
Those are her words.
And then, of course, she rejected her own advice and broke her own promise.
And then she commandeered the process by launching all on her own an impeachment inquiry without a vote of the House.
The self-anointed Queen Nancy, who is the grand poo-bah of the House of Representatives, she was in charge.
Her brainless minions would have to follow suit.
She didn't even bother to read the transcript of the critical conversation between Trump and Ukraine's President Zelensky before she announced the impeachment process.
She didn't care what it said during the call, that there was no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demand, no threat.
She was bound and determined to impeach Donald Trump regardless of the facts, regardless of the evidence.
I mean, you can almost hear her, can't you, grumbling, oh, facts, those are for the little people.
The Constitution, throw it in the shredder.
Pelosi then sanctioned the super secret hearings in the skiff that's hidden in the Capitol sub-basement level three.
And she excluded three-quarters of the House of Representatives.
Witnesses were threatened with prosecution if they didn't show up, told they couldn't have lawyers present.
Republicans were cut off in their cross-examination, prevented from calling their own witnesses.
The president's counsel was barred.
Pelosi annihilated the fundamental principle of due process, which, by the way, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said applies to congressional hearings.
Now, eventually, under relentless pressure, Queen Nancy consented to open up the proceedings to the public, but that was just a charade because, again, Republicans forbidden from calling their own witnesses, presenting their own evidence.
It was a farce.
And the entire process unfolded in a matter of weeks.
Impeachment on amphetamines.
Trump declared Pelosi was a national security threat.
He's trying to cheat in the next election.
National security is at stake.
Democracy is at risk.
We must dispense with any sense of fairness.
We must rush to judgment with a vote to impeach.
Don't think about it.
Just do it, she ordered.
And of course, all the witless sycophants that are Democrats in the House followed their leader like lemmings jumping off the political cliff.
And once the rush to impeachment was completed, Pelosi then sat on the articles of impeachment for a month as she tried to extort Mitch McConnell and the Senate into allowing her to dictate how the trial should be conducted.
Never mind that it was none of her darn business or that she had no constitutional authority over the Senate trial.
So much for Pelosi's so-called urgency.
You and I know it was just a lie.
Speaking of liars, Pelosi's greatest act of stupidity, and there are so many to choose from, was appointing the master of all liars, Adam Schiff, as the face of impeachment.
This guy has a PhD in lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, all manner of reprehensible canards.
Shifty Schiff, as Sean likes to call him, is the professor emeritus of deceit and dishonesty.
So picking the mendacious Schiff as the House manager to present the case to the U.S. Senate was an enormous blunder and the biggest gift that has ever been bestowed on Donald Trump.
I mean, think about it.
Schiff is the face of impeachment.
I mean, it's Christmas on steroids, folks.
Schiff's track record of fabrications, distortions, lies is well known among the senators.
The moment the guy opens his mouth to argue the case, he lost.
He has no credibility.
Nobody believed anything he was saying.
He twisted the facts.
He contorted the meaning of the impeachment clause.
But most of all, he just made stuff up.
There's a great column that you should read on the website of Real Clear Politics.
It's entitled, and this is a propitious title, if ever there was one.
Lies, Damn Lies, and Adam Schiff's Moving Lips.
You got to love it.
And it's so true.
I invite you to read it.
The author is Frank Millé, who compares Adam Schiff to a Shakespearean character who, quote, is only comfortable in his own skin when he's making the skin of others crawl.
That is a brilliant description of Adam Schiff, because throughout the trial, Schiff offered his own opinion and speculation, masquerading his facts.
He exaggerated and misrepresented.
At one point, he just invented things out of whole cloth.
I mean, you would need a calculator to keep track of all the lies and deceptions.
There isn't a scintilla of decency or conscience in the malevolent Adam Schiff.
And the senators know that.
They know his long record of falsehoods.
They know that whatever emanates from his mouth is fiction.
He's a wannabe dime novelist bereft of talent, utterly untrustworthy.
And Schiff was the face of impeachment.
Along with his sidekick, Jerry Nadler, they became the laurel and hearty of the impeachment trial.
They're the only ones who took themselves seriously.
It's unbelievable.
All right, ladies and gentlemen, we're going to be talking a lot more throughout the day about impeachment.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare and, frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
Well, he will not be acquitted.
You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial.
And you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documents.
All right, there you go.
Nancy Pelosi.
You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial.
You don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation.
Nan, did you watch the Senate trial?
Nan, talking to you.
Videotaped testimony, Nan, of a dozen House witnesses was introduced as evidence, accepted into evidence by vote, in addition to thousands of pages of documentary evidence.
Nan, can you hear me?
Anybody in there?
Hello, McFly.
So look, you know, I realize Nancy Pelosi is not a lawyer, but that was just a dopey thing to say because I'm a lawyer and I've tried cases without witnesses.
You stipulate to a set of facts with the other side and you introduce physical evidence, documentary evidence.
There are opening statements and closing arguments, and then it goes to the judge or jury, whichever you have.
And that's a trial, Nan.
So Nancy Pelosi is out there, and what's insane are all of the other idiots who then mimicked what she said.
You know, Chris Murphy, the senator in Connecticut where I live, who every time he opens his mouth, he tends to embarrass himself.
He mimicked the same thing.
Oh, no witnesses, not a real trial, therefore not an acquittal.
You heard Kamala Harris, who was a district attorney, a city attorney, a state attorney general, who then mimicked the lie that, oh, it's not a real trial if you don't have witnesses.
These people know better.
So what are they doing?
They're just deceiving you for political reasons.
And, you know, it is one of the most outrageous of the many outrageous statements that have been made during the two weeks of this impeachment nightmare with two articles of impeachment.
The first one is abuse of power, which states no crime, no violation of law.
It's nowhere in the Constitution.
It is this wonderfully amorphous phrase that can mean anything you want it to mean.
It is not an impeachable offense by definition.
The second one should have been dismissed at the outset.
It's more ridiculous.
Obstruction of Congress because the president invoked his legal right to challenge under immunity and executive privilege the same rights that every other president has invoked.
But when Donald Trump does it, oh, it's an article of impeachment.
He should be removed from office.
That one should have been subject to an immediate motion to dismiss.
So here we are, and they're going to run out the clock as long as they can throughout the weekend with trying to delay.
You know, Chucky Schumer has made it clear that he is going to undertake every single parliamentary maneuver to delay this.
He wants to embarrass the president by having it still going on when the State of the Union address is delivered before Congress on Tuesday.
You don't really want to do it on Monday.
The Iowa caucuses, you got the Super Bowl on Sunday.
So Chuck E wants to drag it out.
Call his office and complain.
I invite you to do this.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
We're going to be right back, and our guest will be Senator Rand Paul to talk about the faux whistleblower.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
And welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean today.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst, author of the new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Check out my website, thegregjarrett.com.
My Twitter handle is GregJarrett, at Gregjarrett.
And by the way, Greg, with a total of three Gs, two at the end, one at the front end.
And also check out my podcast.
It's entitled The Impeachment Witch Hunt, and you can find it on FoxNewsPodcasts.com.
That's podcasts plural, foxnewspodcasts.com.
We're up to 10 episodes.
We started in the beginning, and the latest one was a summary that occurred yesterday.
Joining us now, we're very pleased to have Congressman Lee Zeldin of New York, one of the House of Republicans, currently a part of the Congressional Advisory Team for President Trump.
Congressman Zeldin, thanks very much for being with us.
Of course, it's great to be with you, Greg.
You know, I would love, because you're a lawyer, you served in the military, you're currently a lieutenant colonel, but you were in the Judge Advocate General Corps as a prosecutor and a military magistrate.
So I want your legal reaction to something I find utterly ludicrous, which is Nancy Pelosi's claim that without new witnesses, it's not a trial.
It's not an acquittal.
Here's what she said, followed by three others who mimicked the same thing.
Take a listen.
You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that.
So we're going to have a trial with no witnesses.
We're going to have a trial with no deliberations.
That isn't a trial.
And I think Speaker Pelosi is right.
Then this can't be a real acquittal.
If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.
This will not have been a fair trial, and therefore they cannot walk out of this building and allege and assert that there has been a true acquittal.
There will be no true acquittal if there is not a fair trial.
So the last three were Senators Chris Murphy, Chuck Schumer, and Camela Harris.
So Congressman Zeldin, what's your reaction to that?
There have been 17 witnesses, 18 if you include I.G. Atkinson.
And the president called a grand total of zero of those witnesses.
Not only was the president's counsel unable to call any of those witnesses, the president's counsel wasn't even allowed in the room to hear, let alone being able to cross-examine any of those witnesses.
All 17 of the people we heard from, plus Atkinson, if you want to make it 18, were all called by Adam Schiff.
And so it's actually worse than their argument that there's been zero witnesses when, in fact, there have been all these other witnesses and they've only been called by Adam Schiff.
Now, their last words in the House floor before sending the impeachment articles over to the Senate was a declaration that their evidence was overwhelming, uncontested, indisputable, and proof beyond a doubt.
They showed up for the first day of trial.
They spent 11 hours going point by point by point of all the things that they need in order to prove their case.
Literally the next day, day two of the trial, they then said once again their evidence was overwhelming, uncontested, indisputable, and proof beyond a doubt until you got into the questions.
And the very first question right out of the gate, if I remember correctly, Adam Schiff said, was asked whether or not they can prove their case with the evidence before them, and he said no.
So the contradictory positions that they have with regards to their evidence in total is one thing, but their assessment of whether or not there's been witnesses, a whole other.
The count, in my view, is 17 to 0 or 18 to 0, depending on how you want to look at it.
Yeah, you know, I covered the Bill Clinton impeachment case back in 1999.
There were no actual live witnesses.
They deposed three individuals.
Video clips were selectively played, and that was the extent of it.
Here, of course, the senators have sat there and watched the videotaped testimony of more than a dozen witnesses accepted into evidence, not to mention thousands of pages of documents introduced and accepted into evidence.
To suggest that this somehow isn't a legitimate trial is just, I mean, it's dumb, isn't it?
And I think it's very telling of just how weak their case is, because if for a moment we wanted to play along with their position that there has been zero witnesses, how telling is it to you that their first witness, in their position, their first witness isn't anyone who they have spoken to already, who they have relied on as their star witnesses.
They're not saying that they want their witness number one to be Fiona Hill or Gordon Sonlin or Lieutenant Colonel Vinman or Bill Taylor.
They're saying that they would want their first witness, their second witness, their third witness, their fourth witness to be people who they have absolutely no idea what that person's going to say.
That's a pretty clear sign of just how weak their case is truly if their position was that there's been no witnesses and they're not asking for anyone that we've heard from.
You know, the amazing part of it is most of these witnesses that the Democrats called would never be allowed to testify in a court of law.
You know this as a lawyer.
I'll give you a perfect example.
George Kent said, well, I believed there was a quid pro quo because I heard it from Bill Taylor, who heard it from Tim Morrison, who heard it from Ambassador Gordon Sondlin, who testified that he presumed it.
At one point, he said it was just a guess.
That is quadruple hearsay that would be inadmissible times four in a court of law.
And that's the kind of witness testimony that Adam Schiff has presented.
That's right.
And when George Kent was giving his testimony in front of the public hearing, he was sitting next to Bill Taylor.
And this all started when Bill Taylor gave his deposition, the leaked opening statement that came out, if I remember it was on page 12, where he goes through this scenario where he says he was, as you just laid out, told by Morrison.
Sondlin tells Morrison.
Sondlin says that he overheard it from someone else, and this would not be admissible in a court.
And then the other thing that's really frustrating to listen to, I remember, and I'll just give you one of what could be a thousand examples, Jason Crowe saying, OMB's Mark Sandy asked why there was a hold on aid and he never got an answer.
Now, if you're a senator who hasn't been following every last detail of the case, maybe you haven't read every transcript that's out there, you might think that they're being honest with you.
But in fact, OMB's Mark Sandy did get an answer, and the answer that he testified to in his depositions, his deposition was that the president was concerned about other countries paying their fair share, that the president was concerned about burden sharing.
So not only are they utilizing all of this witness testimony presented before the Senate with the president's counsel having had no opportunity to cross-examine any of them, the way that they're spinning what they're showing is leaving out, again, and I could give you a thousand examples like that, material facts to complete these thoughts to make them accurate.
You know, the big battle is over calling John Bolton.
Democrats are going to lose it, but they're going to try to, you know, run out the clock as long as they possibly can.
And it's all based on a New York Times anonymously reported story that John Bolton's upcoming book manuscript, which the New York Times, by the way, doesn't quote and hasn't seen, recounts how President Trump in a conversation said he wanted, wanted to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless the nation investigated the Bidens.
Wanting to do something is completely different than doing it.
Lots of presidents want to do things they never choose to do.
And in the end, the president released the funds without any strings attached.
There was no investigation of the Bidens launched by Ukraine.
So isn't this sort of impeachment by the thought police, the discussion police, that we're going to remove a president of the United States because he once confidentially talked with an aide, allegedly, about withholding aid in a purported quid pro quo?
The president did not do anything that you can impeach him for doing, period.
If you wanted to rule in the most negative fashion, make the worst possible inferences across the board on so much of what Adam Schiff and the House impeachment managers are laying out to the Senate and to the American public, they are falling short of what you need to impeach this president.
And the fact is we're months before an election.
And while I've heard that scenario of what happens one day when you have a Republican House and a Democratic president, that's an important point.
I'm also worried about the day after you remove the president of the United States when you have tens of millions of Americans in an uproar.
If you think our country is divided now, imagine what would happen if the Senate voted today to remove the president from office.
The Senate, the House did not subpoena John Bolton.
And when they talk about the months, if not years, it would take to resolve this case.
What's really important to point out is that a federal judge, as you know, Judge Leon, had an expedited schedule on the Kupperman subpoena.
And in the December-January timeframe, he was going to help settle this dispute between the executive branch and the legislative branch on the House impeachment subpoenas.
What did Adam Schiff do?
He lost interest.
He withdrew the Kupperman subpoena and he filed a motion to dismiss.
They were in a rush not only to impeach the president by Christmas, but I think the other concern was that if Judge Leon ruled in favor of the president, how would you impeach the president days later for obstruction of Congress right after a federal judge just ruled that the president is not obstructing Congress?
And then they sat on the impeachment articles for 33 days, so I guess it really wasn't as much of a rush.
They could have decided this issue through Judge Leon.
We could have been past it.
Yeah.
Congressman Lee Zeldin, many thanks for being with us.
As we wrap it up here, do you think this is going to extend into mid-next week?
I don't know yet.
I've heard that.
I believe that this should end right now.
I don't believe that we should wait past the Iowa caucuses, that we should wait past the president's State of the Union address.
I want to see this end.
It's time for our country to heal, to move on, to move forward.
It's time to put this past us.
I don't see why they can't simply dispense with the witness issue with a vote sometime tonight, reconvene tomorrow, and just have a vote.
I mean, yes, I know that Adam Schiff wants his TV time to put his mug on the face, his face on television, because he lives for that.
He and Chucky Schumer.
But the defense could simply stand up and say, well, we have nothing further to say.
We rest our case.
So you give two hours to Schiff and then have a vote tomorrow.
Why not?
That's right.
Shut it down, turn the lights off at the Senate for the weekend.
Come back next week, ready to work on substantive issues to move our country forward.
If Adam Schiff needs a mic, he can go find it somewhere else.
He doesn't need to stand on the Senate floor to do it.
It's time to acquit.
All right, Congressman Lee Zeldin, many thanks for taking the time, a member of the Congressional Advisory Team for President Trump in the impeachment trial.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
Our telephone number is 1-800-941-7326, 1-800-941-7326.
We'll be right back.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond.
And I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So, if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass, you're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked why.
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
All right, I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
Today we've been talking about impeachment by any reasonable and objective standard.
Hunter Biden's employment on the board of Ukrainian natural gas company was highly suspicious.
This is a kid of a vice president being paid $83,000 a month to sit on the board.
He has no experience in the energy sector, no experience in Ukrainian affairs.
Can anyone truly argue that the behavior of Joe and Hunter Biden was not suspicious enough to merit an investigation?
I mean, Joe's on tape bragging about how he extorted Ukraine into firing the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma, the company.
A billion dollars of your taxpayer money.
I'm not going to give it to you unless you fire the prosecutor, who just happens to be investigating my son's company and potential corruption.
And Democrats' own witnesses said it posed a serious conflict of interest.
Evidence produced by Republicans during the Senate trial has raised the specter of self-enrichment and influence peddling.
Video clips played by the media asking persistent questions about the Bidens and corruption.
The president had a legitimate basis to ask Ukraine to scrutinize what happened.
It was a matter of public interest.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
We'll be right back.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down at Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Hammond, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen.
What I told people, I was making a podcast about Benghazi.
Nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Nafok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
Hope you'll pick up my new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
How is it possible that a group of unelected, powerful officials in government and others worked secretly to invent a lie and spread a lie that President Trump was a Russian asset who conspired with Putin in the bowels of the Kremlin to steal the 2016 election?
And now we know it was all a hoax.
It was a witch hunt that held this nation hostage for the better part of two and a half to three years.
And now we're into the impeachment based on a different witch hunt, the Ukrainian witch hunt.
And joining us now to talk a little bit about both is Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who's a member of the House Congressional Advisory Team and has really, I think, had enough of the attacks on President Trump.
Congressman, thanks for stepping out to talk with us a little bit about this.
I'm guessing you were not surprised when we learned recently from the Department of Justice that they'd notified the FISA Court that the warrants to spy on the Trump campaign were illegally obtained.
What do you think?
Yep.
No, look, Greg, you've been great on this.
A number of us have been talking about this for two years.
And guess what?
The only thing we got wrong is it was worse than we thought.
And by the way, I'm looking forward to reading your second book.
Your first book was great.
I mean, it was detailed, and it was really great.
So all the people listening, I hope you get the second one like I'm going to.
The second book's better than the first book, but go ahead.
Oh, I look forward to it.
I mean, I read all your first books.
Thank you.
Because this was right when the first one was right when we were starting to figure all this out and put it all together.
But think about what they did.
Lieutenant Defiza Court 17 times.
They go to the FISA court and don't tell the FISA court that the guy who wrote the dossier, Christopher Steele, was, quote, desperate to stop Trump.
He had told Bruce Orr at the Justice Department that he was desperate to stop Trump, and they don't even tell the court that.
Don't tell the court that he's being paid by the court.
And the audience has been all through this.
But that 51 factual assertions that weren't supported, weren't properly supported.
And they were spying on four people, not two.
So, yeah, and you're exactly right.
It's been one thing after the other to go after this president.
I always say it this way.
Impeachment didn't start on July 25th with the phone call between President Trump and President Zelensky.
Impeachment started July 31st, 2016, when they opened the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
That's when it started.
We know it, and it has never stopped.
And frankly, this is the sad news.
It's never, ever going to stop with these guys.
You know, you mentioned the date that they opened the investigation on Donald Trump masquerading as a counterintelligence probe.
Yep.
And they had no credible evidence.
They had a phony dossier that they hadn't yet vetted or verified.
You know, in both my books, I go through the FBI regulations.
You can't do what they did.
You must have specific, articulable facts, not hearsay from a foreign source based on other sources.
Those aren't facts.
You must have facts.
You may be able, perhaps, to open a preliminary investigation.
No, they opened a formal investigation, and then they go to a court, they lie, they deceive, they omit, they doctor evidence, and they began a spy campaign.
I mean, this is something, and I interviewed the president of the Oval Office about this for the second book.
He said this is something that should never happen to another presidential candidate or another president again.
Yeah, and it shouldn't happen to any American.
And that last point you made when you were reading off the list of things they did, they doctored evidence.
So it wasn't just that they omitted to tell the court things.
It wasn't just that they misrepresented things.
They actually changed an email that was one of the bases that they directly changed the meaning of an email and the FBI lawyer did.
So that's how bad it was.
And it was so bad.
Think of what the FISA court said.
Judge Collier, she wrote this.
The frequency with, I just had to pull this out because I was using this for something else, getting ready for Christopher Wray next week.
The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable.
So put it in plain English, you guys misrepresented so much to us.
How are we to trust any other representation you've made to the court?
When a judge says that you know this better than anyone, Greg, when a judge says that, that tells you how bad this was.
You know, Carter Page has now filed the first genuine lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee, Perkins Cooey, the DNC, and the Hillary Clinton campaigns lawyers.
I mean, but I read the complaint.
It's 23 pages long.
And there are others identified, though not named as defendants, and that would include Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele.
I mean, there are going to be either additional defendants or separate lawsuits against other individuals.
And shouldn't there also be a lawsuit, Congressman, against the FBI?
And in particular, these rogue operators like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Joe Pientka, and others who were an instrumental part of the hoax and violating the constitutional rights of Carter Page.
Yeah, there may be.
I think, frankly, we'll wait and see what the criminal probe and the investigation that Mr. Durham is doing at the request of the Attorney General.
We'll wait and see how that pans out.
But I've said this many times, but when the Attorney General of the United States testified right when the Mueller report was coming out last spring, he made some interesting statements in front of the Senate Finance Committee.
The first statement was, he said, there's a failure of leadership at the upper echelon of the FBI.
Well, that's the understatement of the year.
Of course there was.
He's exactly right.
Comey's been fired.
McKay's been fired.
Jim Baker, chief counsel, was demoted, then left.
Lisa Page demoted, left.
Peter Strzok demoted and fired.
These were the people who ran the mid-year exam, and then, of course, which was the Clinton investigation, and then, of course, Crossfire Hurricane, which was the Trump Brush investigation.
Then he said three other things about spying.
And he used the word spying, which just set the Democrats off.
The fact that the Attorney General would use the word spying.
But it was exactly the right word.
He said spying took place.
He said there's a basis for my concern about spying.
And third, he used the term political surveillance.
And that's the scary part.
Because my guess is, it hasn't probably happened too often in our nation's history where you use one party's opposition research document to go after the other party's campaign.
You use it to go to a secret court and get a warrant to spy on a presidential campaign.
That all happened.
So I hope people are held accountable.
And it seems to me the guy who is most responsible for this is Jim Comey.
He's the guy who allowed it to be a headquarters special and do it the way they did.
He's the one who's most responsible.
But we'll kind of wait and see what Mr. Durham's investigation shows.
And speaking of Jim Comey, the most outrageous thing that I've found so far, and I recount all of his lies and deceptions in my new book, Witch Hunt.
But when the Inspector General report came out, we learned that the whole collusion narrative that was fictitious and recited in the anti-Trump dossier, that Jim Comey found out, and the FBI found out the very month Trump was inaugurated, January of 2017, that it was all fictive.
It was all, I mean, they found the sub-source who fed this stuff to Chris Steele, and the guy said, are you kidding me?
This is just exaggeration and made up.
And some of it was said in jest, and none of it, none of the allegations against Trump were true.
And instead of Comey going to the FISA court and saying, we withdraw it, we apologize, no more spying, instead of going over to the White House and telling the president, you know the dossier thing I told you about in the Trump Tower meeting, forget about it.
We have ended our investigation.
It's over.
He didn't do any of that.
He accelerated it.
Yeah, they doubled down.
And this is what makes the statement that Chuck Schumer said a few, when it was President-elect Trump, made it so dangerous because Chuck Schumer is being interviewed on January 3rd, 2017 between Election Day and Inauguration Day.
And the President Trump had said they spied on this.
And of course, all the mainstream press laughed and poo-pooed that and everything else.
And Chuck Schumer was on Rachel Maddow's show just a few said on the Rachel Maddow show on that January 3rd.
He said, if you mess with the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
And that's exactly what happened.
So instead of coming to the FISA court with the truth, Jim Comey did what Chuck Schumer said was going to happen.
Now, to me, that's the scariest thing of all.
And this gets to that point of Emmett Flood's letter where he said, if they can do, we would all do well to remember if they can do it to a president.
Imagine what they can do to you and I.
So that's the scary part.
Chuck Schumer's statement became true that very month, January of 2017.
They doubled down on this when they knew it was bogus.
That's the scary part.
And here we are now at the end of impeachment.
The president will not be removed from office.
Chuck Schumer seems like he wants to engage in every parliamentary trick possible to continue to draw this thing out.
You know, that's what he's doing, isn't it?
Yeah, of course.
I mean, they want to just whatever's next.
If they would have got a witness, if the votes were there for the witnesses, it looks like it's not, thank goodness.
But if they got another witness, it would have been next week they'd have wanted someone else.
And then it would have been someone.
And remember the witness count.
The witness count is 17 to 0 in favor of the Democrats.
The Republicans and the White House president, we got no witnesses.
We weren't allowed to subpoena anybody.
We were allowed to kind of cross-examine and ask questions in these depositions of all Adam Schiff's subpoenaed witnesses, but we weren't allowed to bring anyone in.
So this idea that there are no witnesses, it's 17 to zero.
They want to make it 18 to 0 with Mr. Bolton sometime next week.
That's not going to happen.
But if it did, that would never be enough.
It would be 19 the following week, then 20.
And they want to, because they've been after this president, like we said, since July of 2016.
Right.
And, you know, they keep bringing it up, you know, the whole Russia collusion hoax.
They keep bringing it up during this impeachment trial, which is truly amazing, as if the Mueller Report, Volume 1, didn't conclude that there was no criminal collusion conspiracy, which, you know, they always leave that out.
Richard Burr, the senator, brought up how Hillary Clinton's campaign had hired, you know, an ex-British spy to compose a dossier, turned out to be phony, from foreign sources.
Wasn't that election interference?
And here's the response from House Manager Hakeem Jeffries.
I'll get your reaction on the other side.
The analogy is not applicable to the present situation because first, to the extent that opposition research was obtained, it was opposition research that was purchased.
It's okay to buy foreign interference in the election, according to Hakeem.
What do you think of that?
No, this is laughable.
This is why the American people see through this.
It is why, in spite of probably, what, 100% positive coverage from the mainstream press about the Democrats case that they put on, their terrible case, it still hasn't changed anything.
And the votes, in fact, think about this.
I was thinking about this the other day.
So on September 24th, Greg, when Nancy Pelosi stands up, before the transcript is published, she stands up and says, we're going to launch an impeachment inquiry and starts this investigation in the House.
She never would have predicted then.
The conventional wisdom was then that, oh, momentum was going to move their direction and some Republicans in the House would vote for the articles and then there would be a tough vote.
She never thought on September 24th, when the articles came up for a vote in the House, that every single Republican would vote no.
One Democrat would vote with us.
Another Democrat would vote with us on one of the articles.
A third Democrat would vote present.
And a fourth Democrat would vote with us and then switch parties.
And now they never anticipated when they went to the Senate after she held these articles that they wouldn't get additional witnesses.
And they certainly didn't anticipate what I believe is going to happen, hopefully sometime soon, is that the bipartisan vote will be in favor of the president.
Every Republican senator will vote for acquittal.
And I bet there's one or two Democrats who vote that way too.
That was never the prediction.
That shows you how ridiculous this case has been from the get-go.
It has.
Equally ridiculous is the Russia hoax.
And I know you're going to read my new book, Witch Hunt, because I think you're going to find, don't let the 1,500 footnotes discourage you, by the way.
But I think you're going to find some things in there that may surprise you.
But Congressman Jim Jordan, thank you so much for taking the time.
Thank you, Greg.
Thanks for all your work.
Take care.
Thank you.
Bye-bye.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down with Verdict with Ted Cruz now, wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey there, I'm Mary Catherine Howe, and I'm Carol Markowitz.
We've been in political media for a long time.
Long enough to know that it's gotten, well, a little insane.
That's why we started Normally, a podcast for people who are over the hysteria and just want clarity.
We talk about the issues that actually matter to the country without panic, without yelling, and with a healthy dose of humor.
We don't take ourselves too seriously, but we do take the truth seriously.
So if you're into common sense, sanity, and some occasional sass.
You're our kind of people.
Catch new episodes of Normally every Tuesday and Thursday.
On the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcast, or wherever you listen.
When I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
It's almost a dirty word, one that connotes conspiracy theory.
Will we ever get the truth about the Benghazi massacre?
Bad faith, political warfare, and, frankly, bullshit.
We kill the ambassador just to cover something up.
You put two and two together.
Was it an overblown distraction or a sinister conspiracy?
Benghazi is a Rosetta Stone for everything that's been going on for the last 20 years.
I'm Leon Napok from Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries.
This is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Yes, that's right.
Lock her up.
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett.
I must tell you, it is disturbing that John Bolton, President Trump's former national security advisor, would have the temerity to write a book that breaches executive privilege and to profit by it financially.
A couple of days ago, I read a column in the New York Times opinion piece by a couple of knuckleheads who said, oh, this is censorship, not to release Bolton's book, the full manuscript.
It's prior restraint.
No, it's not.
A senior director at the National Security Council has sent a letter to John Bolton's attorney.
And the letter warns that the manuscript submitted to the council contains, quote, significant amounts of classified information, including some at the top secret level.
Now, the two knuckleheads would love to read that classified information, but I'm willing to bet they don't have security clearance.
To disseminate the information as is in Bolton's manuscript would be a crime.
You are not allowed to disclose classified information to the general public.
Under federal law, it is a felony.
So these two guys need to clean out their ears with q-tips, open their eyes, and read the felony statutes.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity.
I'll be right back.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean today.
Hope you'll check out my impeachment witch hunt podcast.
Ten episodes so far.
The latest came out just yesterday.
You can get it at FoxNewsPodcasts.com.
Podcasts is plural, foxnewspodcast.com.
And check out my Twitter account.
My handle is greg.jarrett at greg.jarrett.
Two G's at the end of Greg.
And buy my new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Want to go to our phone lines because people have been holding, and I thank you for doing so.
You've been very patient.
And Nolan from Utah joins us now.
Hi, Nolan.
How are you?
I'm fine.
Good afternoon and enjoy your show.
Thank you.
I have a question that I haven't heard discussed.
What are the options after the Senate dispenses with whatever they end up going to do here with this impeachment?
What are the possibilities of the Trump legal team going to the federal courts and have the original impeachment in the House set aside, invalidated on the grounds of denial of due process in the House proceedings?
You know, it is, Nolan, an interesting question.
There's no question in my mind that there was a violation of due process and fundamental fairness, which, as I mentioned before, the U.S. Supreme Court has said must be applied to congressional hearings.
In the impeachment proceedings, it was not.
It was deprived.
So there is certainly a due process violation, but there's no mechanism that I'm aware of in the law that would allow for, for example, the impeachment itself to be set aside or expunged in any way.
And, you know, I mean, even if you it would probably be rejected by the first federal judge, go to the Court of Appeals if they want to appeal it to the Supreme Court, which would never touch it.
I mean, they do not like to get into the middle of a battle between the legislative and executive branches, and to involve themselves in impeachment matters is something that is completely anathema to SCOTUS and their approach towards such matters.
So, you know, it's an interesting question.
The president's rights have been violated, but, you know, that's politics for you.
Let's go to our next caller, Stanley in Alabama.
Stanley, how are you?
Hey, Greg, how are you?
I'm well.
Good.
I have a thought I want to run past you.
It seems to me that perhaps by voting to require additional witnesses, the Democrats are, in essence, saying we don't have enough information to convict.
Therefore, later on, when they do vote to convict, aren't they just at least tacitly admitting this is a critical hatchet job?
Oh, they are.
Absolutely they are.
More than two dozen times, Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler, the Laurel and Hardy of the House managers, have stated to the senators, we have overwhelming, compelling evidence.
And, you know, it's an absolute slam-dunk, open-and-shut case against the president, which invites the question, why do you need more witnesses?
Because they know they're just lying to the senators.
It is not a clear case with overwhelming, compelling evidence.
It's a weak case.
In fact, in my judgment, it's a joke.
It's a farce, a charade, which is why they're asking the senators to now do what they chose not to do during their rush to judgment and vote to impeach.
If they thought these new witnesses like John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and others were so vital, they should have pursued it, but they chose not to do it.
And now they want the Senate to do it.
On the other hand, they've also admitted that they need these witnesses, these new witnesses, because they're admitting the case is weak.
I mean, so they're all over the place.
You can't trust them.
You know, the American people are smart enough to know, and they figured it out early on, that, you know, a conversation that lasted all of 20 seconds, the relevant part about the Bidens in a telephone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky doesn't even remotely approach articles of impeachment that were intended by the framers in the impeachment clause of the Constitution.
It's just not.
But good question.
Thanks very much.
Let's go to John in South Carolina.
Hey, John, how are you?
Greg, as one of your, as a journalist myself, I'm one of your staunchest stalwart supporters of your work.
And so this is not intended as an attack, gotcha question.
So I just wanted to preface it that way.
Just in the last couple of interviews, you've used the word hoax something like six or seven times.
And I'd like to challenge that.
If I had been your book editor, I would have challenged it on the Russia hoax, actually.
Because a hoax is actually something that carries the connotation of being innocuous and a practical joke.
And what comes to mind immediately is the balloon boy from Fort Collins, Colorado in 2009.
That was a hoax and a good one.
Yeah, but it was pretty darn serious.
I mean, America was holding their breath thinking that a kid was all alone in a balloon, helpless, and that it was going to drop to earth and kill him.
So, you know, I would disagree.
I think some hoaxes are nefarious and evil, and this one certainly was.
Yeah.
But, you know, for instance, I mean, it's a matter of semantics.
And none of us, and pardon the pun here, wants to be anti-semantic on anything.
But, you know, we could say that, you know, probably the next charge that might be coming up against President Trump might say at dinner while chewing his food, the president clearly committed public mastication.
You know, that might be the next charge up against him.
Yeah, I know.
You know, bad table manners is an impeachable offense under the Adam Schiff standard.
Good point.
Thanks very much, John.
Appreciate it.
Let's go to our next caller, Dave, in my home state of California, where I lived for three decades.
Hey, Dave, how are you?
Well, that's good to hear, Greg.
It's good to talk to you.
I appreciate you and Sean.
You're doing awesome work.
I have a question, though, about this eternal impeachment.
It seems like it's just obvious to me, listening to all the stuff that we've been listening to for so long, that it's a widespread coordinated cover-up of their own corruption.
You and many other people have said that they're projecting things on the Republicans that they're doing themselves, and that's why it's so coordinated, because they're all in on it.
You know, I wrote a column recently, this month, entitled Pelosi's Sham Trump Impeachment is an abuse of power for political gain.
And I, you know, I spend quite a bit of time in that column explaining how it's not President Trump who has abused power, but by twisting the facts and contorting the constitutional clause of impeachment, it is Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and the rest of the Democrats who are abusing their power.
And Article 2 of the impeachment is the perfect example.
Presidents have routinely, since George Washington, invoked the principle of executive privilege.
It has been widely recognized and respected.
Under Adam Schiff's standard, he would have impeached President George Washington, who refused to hand over confidential communications with John Jay relative to the Treaty of Neutrality to the House of Representatives.
If Adam Schiff had been a congressman back then in 1794, I believe it was, he would have impeached George Washington and just about every other president of the United States who has invoked it, and almost all have.
You know, so I think that they have lowered the standard, to get to your original point, to such a point that now we are going to have impeachment in perpetuity.
That anything, any perceived slight, any real or imagined misconduct in the minds of an opposing party will be grounds for impeachment.
And, you know, look, Maxine Waters has made it clear that after the president's acquittal currently, that they're going to continue to impeach him.
You know, they may resurrect pretty much the same articles of impeachment but cite some new evidence.
You know, they will continue to do it until the very day that Trump leaves office, whenever that is, either next January or four years later, you know, they'll try to impeach him.
And in fact, they'll probably try to impeach him after he leaves office, if that is even possible.
So, and it's been going on, and I recount this in my book, Witch Hunt.
This has been going on since Trump was elected.
And, you know, the media was driving the narrative that everything the president did was an impeachable offense.
Law professors, Democrats, I mean, you name it.
The president was sued within a day or two of taking office, claiming that his pre-existing businesses were a constitutional violation of the emoluments clause and he should be removed from office and impeached.
I mean, the insanity of this is relentless, and it will continue in perpetuity because Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler have now set the bar so low for impeachment that it will be never ending.
And that is not only tragic, but dangerous for future presidents.
Let's go to our next caller, Brian, joins us from Florida.
Hey, Brian, how are you?
I'm doing well.
Thank you very much.
The reason why I was calling is if let's just say that we gave the Democrats what they wanted, okay?
And let's just say that we called for witnesses and called for any witnesses that we want, because it's my understanding that even Roberts can't, you know, can be overturned if he doesn't want to allow our witness.
They can still do that, okay, by a vote.
If that happens, then wouldn't it be completely exposing the corruption that has happened from the previous politicians like Hillary, like Hunter, and Joe, so on and so forth?
It would keep the Democrat, the ones that are running, like Sanders and so on and so forth, in the House.
We could have this thing going all the way to Election Day, and it would be free advertising every day for President Trump.
Yeah, you know, trying to calculate the political winners and losers in all of this is sort of treacherous.
My own personal view is based in history.
When President Clinton was impeached and there were 11 felony offenses identified by the independent counsel and cited in the articles of impeachment, he was nevertheless acquitted because most Americans came to believe that, you know, this, you know, personal conduct involving a White House intern and lying about it, you know, just wasn't the kind of thing that the framers had in mind when they drafted the impeachment clause.
And it boomeranged big time against Republicans.
I mean, House Speaker Newt Gingrich lost his job because of it.
A lot of Republicans in the House lost their jobs as well because of it.
And, you know, if history is a guide, I think it's altogether possible that this is only going to extend to the benefit of Republicans and especially the president in November of this year.
We'll wait and see.
But that's altogether possible.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
Are you grumbling all the time about your cell phone service?
Well, if you haven't switched to Pure Talk, you're probably paying too much for your cell service.
Their customer service is actually located in the United States.
The CEO and chairman is a U.S. veteran.
There's no contract involved.
That's the really good part.
The first month is a risk-free guarantee.
All plans include unlimited talk, text, and data.
Same great coverage at half the price of the big carriers.
It was established in 2005.
And Pure Talk Network covers 99% of Americans.
So get 50% off your first month when you call now.
Just dial pound 250 and say the keyword, save now.
That's pound250 and say, save now.
You'll have the option to receive a one-time auto-dialed text from PureTalk USA.
Well, we're following the latest developments in the United States Senate in the impeachment trial of President Trump.
Lots of discussion and debate.
We're awaiting a Senate vote on whether they will call new impeachment witnesses.
And Chad Pergram, who's our top reporter on Capitol Hill, who knows everything, he tells us that, you know, there is a concerted effort by Democrats and maybe at least one Republican to continue to delay this into next week.
We're going to be talking to Rand Paul, Senator Rand Paul, about it coming up in just a couple of minutes.
So stick around for that.
I'm Greg Jarrett, The Sean Hannity Show.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hennity.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst, former defense attorney, and my new book is called Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
We're going to be talking in just a moment to Rand Paul, a senator who has stepped out and is about to step out and talk to us from the impeachment hearing.
I want to play a clip for you of an important question that was posed.
To set it up, let me tell you that originally, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected an attempt by Senator Paul to name an alleged Ukraine whistleblower.
He didn't use the name whistleblower.
Chief Justice Roberts refused to read the question by Senator Paul.
So other senators then followed up by rephrasing it.
And here it is in Adam Schiff's response.
The question from Senator Johnson and the other senators for both parties.
Recent reporting described two NSC staff holdovers from the Obama administration attending an all-hands meeting of NSC staff held about two weeks into the Trump administration and talking loudly enough to be overheard, saying we need to do everything we can to take out the president.
On July 26, 2019, the House Intelligence Committee hired one of those individuals, Sean Misko.
The report further describes relationships between Misco, Lieutenant Colonel Vinman, and an individual alleged as the whistleblower.
Why did your committee hire Sean Misko the day after the phone call between President Trump and Zelensky, and what role has he played throughout your committee's investigation?
First of all, there have been a lot of attacks on my staff.
And as I said when this issue came up earlier, I'm appalled at some of the smearing of the professional people that work for the Intelligence Committee.
Now, this question refers to allegations in a newspaper article which are circulating smears on my staff and asked me to respond to those smears.
And I will not dignify those smears on my staff by giving them any credence whatsoever.
So Adam Schiff essentially refused to answer the question and deflected.
Joining us now is Senator Rand Paul, who had posed the original question about a so-called whistleblower, although he didn't use in his question the term whistleblower.
Senator, thank you for stepping outside the Senate chamber to speak with us.
What do you make of all of this?
You know, I think it's very important that we explore how this impeachment process began.
You know, as we started looking into Crossfire Hurricane and the FISA warrants that went after President Trump's campaign, we found out that it was done illegitimately with the aid and abettance of President Obama's intelligence community.
And that basically the FBI lied 17 times to get it started.
What if the same thing happened with the impeachment?
We now know of six individuals, Sean Misco from Adam Smith's team, two other people on his team that worked for the National Security Council.
They were friends with the whistleblower or with somebody who people say is a whistleblower.
They were also friends with the Vinmans.
And so you got six people who are all Democrat partisans, Obama partisans, who were unhappy about President Trump.
And is there a possibility that they've been discussing this for years now and that they were just looking for an opportunity to set up a paper trail to begin this impeachment process?
That's not what the whistleblower statute was about.
I mean, look, Colonel Vinman's boss, General Kellogg, was on the call as well, and he sees no problem with it.
There's 400 people listening to the phone call.
It's not like they revealed a secret.
There were 400 people listening on it, and the vast majority of them did not see anything illegal about the phone call.
But one guy who's an Obama partisan, I think, conspired with other Obama partisans to get this thing started.
I think there is some evidence already of that, but probably, you know, we only know maybe 10 or 20 percent of it.
Is this all the more reason why this individual, the so-called whistleblower, needs to be questioned?
It's clearly not going to happen here in the Senate impeachment trial, but should the U.S. Senate compel this individual to come forward to be questioned?
Yes, and I think this person has material evidence also because he worked for Joe Biden.
He's probably been to Ukraine.
We don't know, but I think has.
Was he aware of Hunter Biden?
Was he aware of the conflict of interest?
And so when he gets into his moral dudgeon about President Trump, where was any kind of sort of moral clarity with regard to Hunter Biden?
Did he raise the problem of the conflict of interest, how it was hypocritical of Joe Biden to go to Ukraine and talk about corruption while firing a prosecutor that was investigating the company that was paying Hunter Biden a million dollars?
So there's all kinds of questions to be asked.
But the bottom line is this.
President Trump is correct to be very, very skeptical of the deep state.
What is the deep state?
The bureaucrats that remain in the administration of both the intelligence community and the State Department, no matter who's president, they're there decade after decade.
And if you watch this trial at all, you'll see that they're accusing President Trump of not adhering to the interagency foreign policy.
Well, the last I heard, the president sets a foreign policy, not a bunch of bureaucrats.
But that's one of their big contentions.
They're impeaching President Trump because he did not listen to the talking points of Vidman, and he is contradicting the consensus of the so-called interagency process, which is a bunch of bureaucrats.
And so this is one of the things I like about President Trump is he didn't come from the swamp.
He's above it, and he's willing to, you know, do what he promised as far as foreign policy goes.
The day after the whistleblower complaint was made public several months ago, I wrote a column that said, hold on a minute.
The whistleblower is not a whistleblower under the whistleblower law.
He doesn't qualify.
Thereafter, we learned that the Office of Legal Counsel, the Department of Justice, spent 11 pages laying out the same argument that this guy doesn't qualify as a whistleblower because, one, he's complaining about somebody who isn't a member of the intelligence community, the president.
And second of all, he's complaining about activity that is not intelligence activity.
It's diplomatic activity, a diplomatic conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
So isn't it true, A, that this guy isn't a whistleblower under the law?
And B, he's therefore entitled to no identity protection or anonymity?
Yes, and even the statute, as it reads, doesn't require anonymity for everyone.
It requires his bosses not to reveal his name.
It requires that he not be punished.
Look, you know, there are a lot of different opinions on Edward Snowden, but I think he was a whistleblower.
He revealed something that the government was doing was unconstitutional.
I've been a big defender of him.
But a lot of these so-called Democrats that want to defend the whistleblower statute now want to string him up and want to put him in jail for life.
And I think there's a real hypocrisy with regards to whistleblowers.
But the real danger is, is that what this whistleblower did could be done again?
I met with someone today from the State Department who says they are still littered with either never Trumpers or Obama holdovers who now are going to be emboldened to say, you know what, let's just watch for any kind of document that the president says something or does something that we can get a read on, any kind of phone call.
This means all of his phone calls to foreign leaders could be listened to, and they can do the same thing again and again.
When they find something they don't like, they can initiate impeachment hearings and realize they didn't only report it, they then populated the entire prosecution team.
The three people sitting over there with Adam Schiff all worked at the National Security Council with Vinman and with the people that began the process.
So it's all very incestuous and populated by people who were Obama partisans.
Do you suspect that Adam Schiff and or his staff coordinated and colluded, if you will, with this faux whistleblower to invent a pretext to impeach the president by misusing the whistleblower statute and filing a complaint that doesn't actually qualify under the law?
Without a doubt, and I think they'll do it again.
And this is a real problem as we move forward.
If the entire apparatus of the State Department, our intelligence communities can be used in this fashion, that there's a danger to President Trump ongoing as well as other presidents, that the bureaucratic deep state will react in a way and use these statutes in a way that they were never intended to be used.
Adam Schiff said during the Senate trial, the Q ⁇ A period that he doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower.
Frankly, I find that utterly laughable.
What do you think?
Well, here, this is the real irony, and I think you've hit on it on the head.
I ask a question about two people, Sean Misco, who works for Adam Schiff, and a guy named Eric Chirimella, who is friends with Sean Misco.
I never identified either one of them or anyone as a whistleblower.
I do not know who the whistleblower is.
If Adam Schiff doesn't know, how does the Chief Justice know one of those two people is a whistleblower?
I don't know that either one of them are, so how can they ban language and ban questions regarding somebody that everybody professes not to know who the person is?
So, you know, it's a bizarre situation that we're going to render finer judgment on a question that a senator can ask when I didn't identify anybody as a whistleblower.
I made no accusations.
I just went on published reports that these two individuals were overheard talking about bringing the president down years before this process began.
And if they fraudulently then went and used the whistleblower statute to get this thing started, maybe somebody ought to know.
Maybe somebody ought to question, you know, who among these people have been talking?
How long have you known the person?
And have they colluded to try to bring the president down?
Will any Senate committee investigate the so-called whistleblower?
There are rumblings of it.
And so I hear people in the, you know, we're in the cloakroom a million hours.
We've been, we've heard 100 hours of both sides by now.
And I do hear some in the cloakroom saying, yes, we're going to investigate.
We'll do this later on.
I never have as much confidence that stuff like that will happen.
Maybe.
There are some people in charge of some committees saying they will investigate, but they need to be pushed, I think, from the outside and from the public to say, absolutely, we can't let this happen, this abusive government.
This is also why FISA has got to be reformed.
We can't let them do this again.
I plan on having an amendment.
I'm hoping I can get it bipartisan that says that the FISA process, the secret court that's supposed to be used for foreigners to spy on foreigners, is never used again on a political campaign.
I don't care if you think the Democrats are in cahoot with the Russians or the Ukrainians.
Go to a real judge with an adversarial process where everybody gets a lawyer.
You can do it in private.
Judges can meet in private.
Let's go to a real federal court, not a secret court that is a rubber stamp.
It took FISA two years after Devin Nunes telling them what was going on.
They would never admit it.
They finally have admitted it, and the person they've appointed to investigate themselves is an apologist for the FISA court.
It's not somebody that will really try very hard.
So I don't think FISA courts or secret courts should ever be used to investigate a political campaign of any party.
Is there an appetite among fellow senators to get rid?
I mean, the FISA, I think part of it comes up for renewal in another month from now.
Is there an appetite there to do, as I've written in columns, it's time to get rid of the FISA court?
Yeah, I'm with you.
I've talked to the president a lot about this.
I think the president's definitely for reforms.
My fear is what will come up is some fake reforms.
So they'll go part way, but they won't fix the whole thing.
And then you have to read the small print because sometimes things look like a reform up here.
And in the small print, they can make it worse or the status quo lives on.
The bottom line is there are a lot of people who used to support the FISA court have now seen how it's been abused.
And my point is this.
I don't really care so much.
There are not constitutional rights if you live in Libya for us to eavesdrop on your phone conversation.
I'm fine with that.
But the thing is, if you are an American talking to someone overseas, if you're an American that gets caught up in these vast databases, we shouldn't let someone like Peter Strzok type your name in because you happen to be a Republican or a Trump supporter, type your name in and research your background and listen to your conversations.
You should always have to get a warrant from a real court, a public Article III court, if you want to do anything about searching an American's records.
And none of the stuff that's obtained through the surveillance courts, which do not adhere to a constitutional standard, should ever be used against an American in any court.
And so those are things that are reforms that we really could have.
And whether we get rid of the FISA court or not, you know, I'd be for it.
I don't know if they're the votes for it.
But at the very least, Americans should be protected.
And nothing that is gathered without a real warrant from a real court should ever be used against an American.
All right.
Senator Rampaul of Kentucky, thank you very much for stepping outside the Senate chamber to talk with us.
Appreciate it.
Thanks, Greg.
All right.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
We'll be right back.
We'll have more of your telephone calls coming up on the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrah.
Welcome back to the Sean Hannity Show.
I'm Greg Jarrah.
The latest trend in skincare is instant results.
Introducing the brand new Genucell RH from Shamanee.
Here's Susan from Toms River, New Jersey.
The Genucell RH is a game changer.
Bags under my eyes are history.
It feels so soft and luxurious.
I even use it for redness on my left cheek and my laugh lines.
Thank you, Shamani Home Run.
For a limited time, it's free when you order Genucell jawline treatment and for results in 12 hours or less.
The Genucell Immediate Effects is also free with your order.
Call 800SKIN509.
That's 800-SKIN509.
Or simply go to genucelle.com.
That's genucelle.com.
Order the jawline treatment now and get the new Genucell RH and the Genucell Immediate Effects absolutely free.
Go or go online or call now, 800-skin509 or genucell.com.
That's genucell.com.
We're keeping an eye on what's happening in the Senate chamber on Capitol Hill.
We're awaiting a Senate vote on impeachment witnesses.
There has been some debate, and at some point today, maybe this evening, tonight, there will be a vote.
And the latest count, according to our own Chad Pergram on Capitol Hill, Fox News correspondent, who knows all things Congress, there are 51 votes against any new witnesses.
We'll wait and see.
But there is a movement afoot by Democrats to extend this whole thing well into mid-next week.
We'll be right back with more of the Sean Hannity Show.
And we're back with a Sean Hennity show.
I'm Greg Jarrett of Fox News Channel, filling in for Sean Hennity.
My Twitter handle is at GregJarrett.
My website is thegregjarrett.com.
And be sure to pick up my new book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
We want to get to your phone calls.
Lots of people have been standing by.
They've been waiting as we keep an eye on what's happening in the Senate impeachment trial.
Rick joins us from Florida, the home state this year of the Super Bowl.
Hey, Rick, how are you?
I'm fine, sir.
How are you today?
I'm well.
Thank you.
My question is, hopefully in January when we take the gavel back from Nancy Pelosi.
January of next year.
Can they impeach Schiff being he's an elected federal official?
No, you can't impeach a sitting member of Congress.
I wish it were otherwise, but the law does not allow that.
Impeachment applies to the president, the vice president, and any civil officer.
Those, for example, appointed by the president, federal judges appointed by the president.
Members of Congress are not subject to impeachment because there's no legal or constitutional provision for that.
They can, however, be expelled for a wide variety of misconduct, violation of House rules, commission of crimes.
And actually, expulsion is a simpler process than impeachment because you're only talking about the vote by one body, not two, not the House and the Senate.
So, for example, Schiff could be expelled by the House.
Not likely to happen this year because Democrats control the House.
But even if it flips in January of next year, I mean, you'd have to have pretty solid grounds to expel a member of Congress, which doesn't mean that people in his district in California, Southern California, shouldn't try to vote him out of office come November.
Let's go to our next caller, Robbie of North Carolina.
Hey, Robbie.
Hey, thanks, Greg, for taking the call.
I appreciate your show bringing sanity to insanity.
It's been quite painful listening to the impeachment process so far from the Democrats.
I've got one comment I wanted to bring to your attention, and hopefully you can give some legal, if there's any legal course here, of there's four Democratic presidential candidates that are sitting on the Senate floor listening to the impeachment of Donald Trump.
And, you know, obviously I'm thinking to myself, they have an obvious conflict of interest, do they not?
I mean, yeah, they want to replace the person that they're voting to impeach.
Yeah, absolutely.
I mean, you know, there's no way that they're going to be impartial in their decision there.
Well, should their vote even count towards the vote to impeach them?
Yeah, I mean, look, the answer is everybody in the Senate has some sort of a bias or conflict of interest.
But it's especially acute, as you point out, with people like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobucher.
But, you know, as the framers envisioned it, impeachment is a political process.
So invariably you have politicians who have either a conflict of interest or a severe bias.
But, you know, the framers weighed whether they should have the U.S. Supreme Court sit in judgment as the jury in an impeachment trial.
And if you read Federalist 65 in particular, Alexander Hamilton explains why it would be better to have it in the United States Senate as a political body rather than the Supreme Court.
But that's the short answer.
It doesn't disqualify them from sitting in judgment.
And Robbie, thanks for the phone call.
Chuck joins us now from, again, my home state of California.
Hey, Chuck, how are you?
Where are you?
Southern, Northern California?
Where are you?
I'm in Northern California.
I hope I don't lose you.
I've been on the line there for a little bit, and I'm on the road, so I'm kind of coming into a choppy spot here.
Okay, anyway, yeah, I'm in the northern part of the state.
Hey, man, I love you.
You're a warrior.
I appreciate all that you do.
And, yeah, you're awesome, man.
But, yeah, my question is, and this is, I'm sure, academic for a lot of folks, but the most reasonable people.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You're breaking up.
As I understand it, you know, what you're asking, isn't this just presidential harassment of Donald Trump, congressional harassment of Donald Trump?
And the answer is sure.
I mean, everybody knows it.
And in fact, one of the counsel on the defense team said as much.
We know why you're doing this.
You hate Donald Trump.
You hate his policies.
You always have.
You've been trying to impeach him since the moment he was voted into office, not to mention sworn into office.
Articles of impeachment have been introduced in the House repeatedly since just after the president was inaugurated.
And, you know, just Google, you know, Trump impeachment and you'll see all of the articles of impeachment that have been introduced.
You know, Al Green has been at the forefront of so many of them.
And everything the president does to these people is an impeachable offense.
And so, you know, this is just the latest incarnation of the impeachment witch hunt, as the president calls it, the impeachment hoax.
And I agree.
These articles of impeachment have no legal grounding in the Constitution.
They are not what the president had intended.
And what am I looking at?
What's that?
The Senate has enough.
The Senate has enough votes, and they just voted.
So enough votes to defeat the motion to call witnesses.
And so there you have it.
There will be no new witnesses.
The vote turned out to be 51 no new witnesses.
I imagine nearly all Republicans.
49 yes.
We do know that Susan Collins had stated that she wanted one or more additional witnesses.
Mitt Romney wanted it.
In the end, Susan Murkowski, as well as Lamar Alexander, who were on the fence, said, no, we've heard enough.
No more new witnesses.
So there you have the vote just completed a moment ago, 51 to 49 against compelling witnesses and documents.
So The next step that takes place is a discussion and a debate over how to end this.
Should there be some deliberations, the extent to which there should be closing arguments?
And Politico is reporting that there is a movement afoot among some, including Lisa Murkowski, to wait until mid-next week.
She apparently wants several days of closed-door deliberations.
Now, there were deliberations in the 1999 impeachment case of President Bill Clinton.
So Murkowski is reportedly seizing on that and saying, oh, let's wait.
We need a few more days.
I would think that most senators have already been deliberating in their own mind as they have been watching this impeachment trial unfold agonizingly over the course of two weeks.
They've been listening patiently to all of the opening arguments, the presentation of the evidence of more than a dozen witnesses, video clips played, thousands of pages of documents introduced and accepted into evidence that they've been examining.
So I'm not sure that there's a tremendous appetite in the U.S. Senate for, oh, well, let's think about it for a few more days.
Let's deliberate behind closed doors over the, I think most senators know how they're going to vote.
They're not going to convict the president.
You need a supermajority of two-thirds.
They have nowhere near that.
So this effort by Chuck Schumer principally to extend this, to delay it, is an effort to try to just further damage President Donald Trump and to embarrass him because on Tuesday he is supposed to appear before Congress to deliver his State of the Union address.
And, you know, Chucky Schumer would love nothing more than to hold over the president's head the specter of an impeachment conviction, even though that appears to be largely impossible.
So we'll keep you posted on what's going up, what's going on.
And yeah, Chuck Schumer, you know, the old joke on Capitol Hill among correspondents there is the most dangerous place to be is between Chuck Schumer and a camera.
You know, the guy, he'd walk a mile for a camera.
Generally, he runs to the camera.
And, you know, Adam Schiff is of the same ilk.
Let's go to our next caller, Jim in Florida.
Hey, Jim, how are you?
Hey, Mr. Chair, thank you for being a true journalist.
Your book is awesome.
Thank you.
But I wanted to say I would be surprised if the Democrats try to use grounds of impeachment of the fact that he was acquitted as a form of another ground for impeaching.
But my question to you is legally, since the Democratic Party is a corporation of some sort, can they be held, the Democratic National Committee be held accountable legally from a liability point of view for the fact that they funded this dossier?
I mean, as a party, aren't they legally just an incorporation?
Can't they be sued or held accountable?
Yes.
I mean, they are an entity.
I think they're a nonprofit, but nevertheless, individuals and any kind of entity can be sued.
And in fact, the DNC yesterday, the day before yesterday, was sued by Carter Page, alleging defamation, false light, tortuous interference with economic opportunity.
And believe me, this is just the opening salvo.
This is the beginning of a number of lawsuits that Carter Page will be filing.
And he should sue, in addition to the DNC and Perkins Cooey, the law firm for the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign.
He should also sue the other people he identifies in his civil lawsuit for money damages.
And I read through the 23 pages of the complaint.
And it identifies Glenn Simpson, Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele, people at the FBI.
And so, yeah, I think this is just the first of many to come.
The biggest lawsuit would probably be against the FBI and the Department of Justice, essentially the federal government, for the conduct of these rogue operators like James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, you know, a whole host of people, Bruce Orr at the Department of Justice.
Anybody who signed off on those four FISA warrants to spy on Carter Page, they obtained their warrants illegally, according to the Department of Justice.
They notified the FISA court that these were illegal warrants.
They had no probable cause.
They lied to the judges.
They deceived the court.
This was a fraud on the court.
All of that is actionable in a court of law.
And, you know, before this is all finished, Carter Page is going to be one rich guy, and he deserves every single dollar of it because these people that I just named ruined his life, his good name, and his reputation.
We're going to pause, take a quick break.
I'll be back in just a moment.
I'm Greg Jarrett, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Sean Hannity Show.
As we wrap it up, I'm Greg Jarrett filling in for Sean Hannity.
I'm a Fox News legal analyst.
I hope you'll get my book, Witch Hunt, the story of the greatest mass delusion in American political history.
Because frankly, I think you're going to be shocked about what you read.
The lying and spying that took place to bring down Donald Trump.
You know, the attempted coup by Rod Rosenstein and how he then once caught, lied to President Trump aboard Air Force One.
You know, the Mueller report.
And in particular, you know, these group of partisan lawyers that Mueller assembled who tried to smear Donald Trump with the hope that the House would impeach the president.
And of course, the role of the media and how they drove the narrative that Trump had colluded with Russia.
It was all a witch hunt.
I'm Greg Jarrett again.
Thanks for listening.
Check out my podcast, the Greg Jarrett Impeachment Witch Hunt.
You want smart political talk without the meltdowns?
We got you.
I'm Carol Markowitz, and I'm Mary Catherine Hamm.
We've been around the block in media and we're doing things differently.
Normally is about real conversations.
Thoughtful, try to be funny, grounded, and no panic.
We'll keep you informed and entertained without ruining your day.
Join us every Tuesday and Thursday, normally, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
I'm Ben Ferguson, and I'm Ted Cruz.
Three times a week, we do our podcast, Verdict with Ted Cruz.
Nationwide, we have millions of listeners.
Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, we break down the news and bring you behind the scenes inside the White House, inside the Senate, inside the United States Supreme Court.
And we cover the stories that you're not getting anywhere else.
We arm you with the facts to be able to know and advocate for the truth with your friends and family.
So down a verdict with Ted Cruz Now, wherever you get your podcasts.
What I told people I was making a podcast about Benghazi, nine times out of ten, they called me a masochist, rolled their eyes, or just asked, why?
Benghazi, the truth became a web of lies.
From Prologue Projects and Pushkin Industries, this is Fiasco, Benghazi.
What difference at this point does it make?
Listen to Fiasco, Benghazi, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
